Introduction

The Case Law Database (“CLD”) is a gateway to the jurisprudence of the ICTR, ICTY, and IRMCT Appeals Chambers.

It provides direct access to extracts of key judgements and decisions rendered by the ICTR, ICTY, and IRMCT Appeals Chambers since their inception, as well as to full-text versions of the corresponding appeal judgements and decisions.

Users can conduct quick searches by notions, cases names, titles of filings, date (in year-month-day format), statutes, rules, and other instruments through the “Basic Search” page. In addition, refined searches in all fields of the database can be conducted through the “Advanced Search” feature.

Please note that the CLD does not include confidential decisions and restatements of established case law and does not necessarily contain all notable rulings by the Appeals Chambers of the ICTR, the ICTY, and the IRMCT. For exact numbering of footnotes, refer to full documents.

The CLD is a living tool and its content is being regularly updated. Please help us improve the service by using our feedback form.

Help

Browse the list of legal notion titles using the A-Z index. Click on the notion to show the page containing relevant case law extracts.

Confessions

Paragraph 16 of the Interlocutory Appeal affirms that confessions require consideration under Rule 63 as well as Rule 92 and is not an appropriate basis of distinction in holding a voir dire:

16. The Defence for Mr. Ntahobali further argues that the Trial Chamber erred by distinguishing the Previous Statements (as interviews by the Prosecution investigators) from a confession, in finding that a voir dire procedure is inappropriate in this case. The Appeals Chamber notes that a confession does indeed require additional consideration under the Rules as confessions are specially addressed under Rule 92 of the Rules. However, this provision requires the confession to be conducted in strict compliance with Rule 63 of the Rules. Therefore the distinction between confessions and interviews of the accused is not an appropriate basis for deciding when to conduct a voir dire because both forms of statements require the same consideration under Rule 63. However, contrary to submissions of the Defence for Mr. Ntahobali, the Trial Chamber did not merely rely upon such a distinction in deciding not to conduct a voir dire procedure as the Trial Chamber additionally found that the “circumstances of the case” did not require further investigation.